Next Article in Journal
Correction: Elwakil et al. Memory Impairment, Pro-Inflammatory Host Response and Brain Histopathologic Severity in Rats Infected with K. pneumoniae or P. aeruginosa Meningitis. Pathogens 2022, 11, 933
Previous Article in Journal
New Insights into the Phylogeny of the A.Br.161 (“A.Br.Heroin”) Clade of Bacillus anthracis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phage Therapy for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Vascular Grafts: A Targeted Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/pathogens13070594
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Infective Endocarditis by Campylobacter Species—A Narrative Review

by
Petros Ioannou
1,*,
Angelos Sourris
2,
Andreas G. Tsantes
3 and
George Samonis
1,4,*
1
School of Medicine, University of Crete, 71003 Heraklion, Greece
2
Department of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital of Heraklion, 71110 Heraklion, Greece
3
Laboratory of Hematology and Blood Bank Unit, “Attikon” University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 12462 Athens, Greece
4
Metropolitan Hospital, Neon Faliron, 18547 Athens, Greece
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2024, 13(7), 594; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070594
Submission received: 26 June 2024 / Revised: 10 July 2024 / Accepted: 16 July 2024 / Published: 17 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Updates in Infective Endocarditis)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a disease that may cause significant morbidity and mortality. IE is classically caused by Gram-positive microorganisms; however, Gram-negative bacteria may seldom also be the cause. Campylobacter species cause zoonosis and may also infect humans, mainly causing gastrointestinal infection by C. jejuni or invasive disease by C. fetus, such as bacteremia, sepsis, meningitis, or vascular infection. Campylobacter species IE has rarely been described, and most reports are cases and/or case series. Thus, the characteristics of this disease, including its epidemiology, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcome, remain largely unknown. This study aimed to review all published Campylobacter IE cases and describe their characteristics. A thorough search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for published studies providing information on epidemiology, clinical findings, treatment, and outcome of Campylobacter IE cases was performed for the present narrative review. A total of 22 studies containing data from 26 patients were located and included. Among all patients, 73.1% were male; the median age was 65 years. Among all patients, 36.4% had a history of a prosthetic valve. The most commonly affected valve was the aortic, followed by the mitral. Fever, heart failure, and sepsis were the most frequent clinical findings. The most commonly isolated pathogen was C. fetus, with only one patient having C. jejuni IE. Antimicrobial resistance was low for all antimicrobials, with tetracycline having the highest resistance. Aminoglycosides and beta-lactams were the most commonly used antimicrobials. Surgery was performed in 48% of patients. The mortality rate was 26.9%. Patients who died were more likely to have sepsis, shock, and heart failure and were less likely to have been treated with aminopenicillins; however, no factor was identified in a multivariate logistic regression model as an independent factor for overall mortality.

1. Introduction

Infective endocarditis (IE) involves the infection of the endocardium or prosthetic cardiac material such as a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) or prosthetic cardiac valves [1]. IE can lead to severe complications such as embolic events and metastatic infections and carries a high mortality and morbidity rate [2,3]. In a recent study of patients with IE, mortality in the hospital was 17% [4]. In a different study, the 30-day and one-year mortality rates in these patients were 14% and 30%, respectively [5]. The most typical pathogens causing IE are Gram-positive microorganisms, such as Staphylococci, Enterococci, and Streptococci. These pathogens may be the microbial cause of IE in up to 75% of cases among those with positive cultures, while cases caused by Gram-negative bacteria may seldom be reported [6,7].
Campylobacter species are Gram-negative, non-spore-forming, comma-shaped rods [8]. They are microaerophilic; thus, they grow best in atmospheric conditions with 5% to 10% oxygen, and they all grow at 37 °C, even though some grow best in different temperatures, such as C. jejuni, which grows best at 42 °C. Species of this genus were initially isolated in 1909 from aborted sheep fetuses and, along with other similar organisms, were considered subspecies of Vibrio fetus. However, due to differences in the (G + C) content and fermentation of carbohydrates compared to other members of the genus Vibrio, they were appointed to a new genus [8]. More than ten species have been appointed to the genus Campylobacter; however, several taxonomic studies have recently suggested that splitting the genus to other ones, such as Arcobacter, and appointing some members of the Campylobacter genus to other genera would be more appropriate [8,9,10].
Some Campylobacter species can cause human disease. These diseases can be either enteric or extraintestinal [8]. The most common species causing intestinal disease is C. jejuni, while C. fetus most commonly causes extraintestinal disease [8]. Even though they usually grow in the gastrointestinal tract and create intestinal symptoms, their isolation from fecal specimens is problematic due to their relatively slow growth compared to other enteric bacteria; thus, selective growth techniques or filtration methods are needed for their isolation and identification [8,11,12].
Campylobacteriosis is a zoonosis with worldwide distribution. Campylobacter spp. can be commonly found in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle, goats, cats, dogs, rodents, and other animals [8,13]. C. jejuni can be identified in many different reservoirs, while C. fetus ssp. fetus has been isolated from sheep, poultry, cattle, swine, and reptiles. Colonization by Campylobacter species in animals may occur early in life and usually leads to a lifelong carrier state; however, significant morbidity or mortality may occur [8]. Humans usually contract the disease through contact with animal enteric content that contaminates meat during the slaughtering process [13]. For example, in developed countries, up to 70% of sporadic Campylobacter infections are associated with undercooked poultry consumption [14,15,16]. However, transmission could also occur with direct contact with infected animals [17,18].
Notably, the clinical syndromes of C. jejuni and C. fetus are different. C. jejuni can infect normal hosts of all ages, and the infections may occur quite commonly in clusters. On the other hand, C. fetus ssp. fetus usually acts as an opportunistic pathogen, infecting patients with underlying conditions, even though healthy people could also be infected; clustering is rare [8]. Moreover, C. jejuni typically causes a self-limited intestinal infection, may cause diarrhea, and may be isolated in the feces, while C. fetus rarely causes diarrhea and causes a life-threatening systematic disease, including bacteremia, vascular infections, meningitis, and abscesses, and may be commonly isolated in the blood [8].
Campylobacter species IE has rarely been described, and most reports are made through case series and reports [19]. Thus, the characteristics of this disease, including its epidemiology, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes, remain largely unknown. To that end, this study aimed to review all published cases of IE by Campylobacter species and describe patients’ characteristics, clinical findings, treatment, and outcomes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For this narrative review, data regarding Campylobacter species IE in humans were extracted and collected from the literature. The primary aim was to provide information about the mortality of this infection and the disease’s epidemiology. Moreover, secondary outcomes were to present data on the exact sites of infection, detailed clinical characteristics of the patients, data about the infection’s microbiology, and the treatment provided to patients with IE. For this review, Scopus, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible articles reporting ‘Campylobacter AND endocarditis’. The search was supplemented by ‘vibrio AND (fetus OR coli) AND endocarditis)’. The date of the last search was 17 January 2024. Inclusion criteria for this review included (a) studies with original data, such as case reports, case series, and cohort studies providing information at least about the epidemiology and outcomes of Campylobacter species IE in humans. Articles in languages other than English were excluded. Letters to the editor, reviews, and systematic reviews that did not provide original information were also excluded. Articles without access to the full text and those referring to animals or with insufficient patient mortality and epidemiology data were also excluded from further analysis. The references of the included articles were also searched to identify other studies that had not been previously identified. Finally, national registries of patients with IE were evaluated to identify patients with IE by Campylobacter species.

2.2. Data Extraction and Definitions

The following data were extracted from each included study: year of publication, study type, and country; patients’ demographics (age and gender); patients’ relevant medical history (previous cardiac surgery or cardiac valve replacement, time after valve replacement); infection and relevant microbiology (infection site, microorganism identification, complications, and embolic phenomena); treatment provided; surgical management (if performed); and outcomes (i.e., mortality). The association of mortality with index infection was noted by the authors of each study. The diagnosis of IE was confirmed by the present study’s investigators, based on the data provided in each included study by the authors and the modified 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria if the diagnosis was at least possible (i.e., having at least one major and one minor criterion or at least three minor criteria) or if adequate pathological data justified a diagnosis of IE [20].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as numbers (%) for categorical variables and median (interquartile range, IQR) for continuous variables. Continuous variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test for non-normally distributed variables or the t-test for normally distributed variables. All tests were two-tailed, and a p-value equal to or lower than 0.05 was considered significant. A univariate linear regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the all-cause mortality of the patients. More specifically, univariate logistic regression was performed to identify any association between gender, age, presence of prosthetic cardiac valve, bad teeth hygiene or recent dental work, history of a previous episode of IE, history of rheumatic heart disease, location of the infection (mitral, aortic, tricuspid, pulmonary, or IE at multiple valves), presence of fever, embolic phenomena, sepsis, heart failure, antimicrobial treatment, and surgical management with all-cause mortality. Statistics were calculated with GraphPad Prism 6.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). A multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluated the effect of factors previously identified in the univariate analysis model associated with all-cause mortality with a p < 0.1. Multivariate analysis was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Included Studies’ Characteristics

A total of 246 articles from Scopus, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Library were screened through the initial process. Finally, 22 met the inclusion criteria of the present study and were included [19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. These studies provided data about 26 patients with Campylobacter species IE. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. Among them, 12 were conducted in Europe, 7 in North and South America, and 5 in Asia. Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of Campylobacter species IE cases.

3.2. Characteristics of Campylobacter Species IE

The median age of patients with Campylobacter ΙΕ was 65, ranging from 25 to 95 years, and 73.1% (19 out of 26) were male. History of prosthetic cardiac valve was noted in 36.4% (8 out of 22 patients with available data), congenital heart disease was noted in 22.7% (5), while a recent history of gastroenteritis was present in 21.7% (5 out of 23). Table 1 shows the characteristics of patients with Campylobacter species IE in detail.
Blood cultures were positive in 96.2% of patients (25 out of 26 patients). Infection was polymicrobial in 7.7% of patients (2), and the concomitantly isolated pathogens were staphylococci in both patients. The most commonly identified Campylobacter species was C. fetus in 96.2% of patients (25 out of 26), while C. jejuni was identified only in one patient.
Antimicrobial resistance was 13.6% (3 out of 22 strains in studies with available data) to tetracyclines, 9.5% (2 out of 21) to quinolones, 4.5% (1 out of 22) to aminoglycosides, but 0% (0) to aminopenicillins.
Fever was present in only 50% of patients (12 out of 24 with available data), sepsis in 25% (6), shock in 16.7% (4), while heart failure was diagnosed in 29.2% (7), embolic phenomena in 16.7% (4), endophthalmitis in 4.2% (1), and paravalvular abscess in 4.2% (1). Detailed information on the diagnosis and clinical presentation of Campylobacter species IE can be seen in Table 2.

3.3. Treatment and Outcomes of Campylobacter Species IE

The detailed treatment provided for Campylobacter species ΙΕ can be seen in Table 1 and is also summarized in Table 2. Surgical management and antimicrobial therapy were performed in 48% of patients (12 out of 25 patients with available data). All-cause mortality was 26.9% (7 out of 26 patients) and was attributed directly to IE in 19.2% of cases (5).

3.4. Statistical Analysis of Campylobacter Species ΙΕ

A statistical comparison of patients with Campylobacter species ΙΕ who survived with those who died revealed that those who died were more likely to have presented with sepsis, shock, and heart failure and were less likely to have been treated with aminopenicillins. The statistical comparison results can be seen in Table 1 and Table 2. Moreover, a univariate linear regression analysis of overall mortality with several patients’ characteristics was performed and identified sepsis, shock, and heart failure to be positively associated with overall mortality (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.0186, respectively). Treatment with aminopenicillin and surgical treatment were negatively associated with mortality (p = 0.0186, p = 0.362, respectively). A multivariate logistic regression analysis did not identify any factors independently associated with overall mortality.

4. Discussion

This study described the characteristics of patients with Campylobacter species IE. Most patients were males, recent gastroenteritis was common, most species were C. fetus, and the most commonly infected valve was the aortic. The most common clinical findings included fever and heart failure. Aminoglycosides and beta-lactams were the most commonly used antimicrobials, while 27% of patients died.
Even though Gram-positive microorganisms are the most commonly identified pathogens causing IE, Gram-negative microorganisms are also implicated to a smaller extent [6,7]. The Gram-negative pathogens causing IE are traditionally divided into the HACEK group (Haemophilus spp., Aggregatibacter spp., Cardiobacterium spp., Eikenella spp., and Kingella spp.) and other Gram-negative microorganisms, such as those that are members of the Enterobacterales group, and other non-fermenters [42,43]. This distinction is important due to differences in epidemiology, treatment, and mortality of IE caused by these two groups. Hence, IE by HACEK has a much lower mortality, estimated at 2%. On the other hand, IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative pathogens is more commonly associated with nosocomial acquisition, older patients with more complex medical histories, and quite a higher mortality that can be as high as 40% [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. Notably, there are no uniformly adopted guidelines regarding the treatment of IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative microorganisms. Campylobacter IE is rare, even among IE caused by non-HACEK Gram-negative microorganisms. Thus, collecting all published evidence regarding this disease would be essential for providing some advice for physicians treating patients with this rare disease. To that end, this review is the first to provide information regarding the epidemiology, microbiology, clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Campylobacter species IE.
The median age of patients with Campylobacter species IE in the present review was 65 years, which is relatively higher than that of patients with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria in the literature, which is within the range of 40 to 63 years [48,51,52]. A male predominance was noted, as is also the case in patients with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria [48,51,52]. A prosthetic valve was noted in 36.4% of patients with Campylobacter species IE, a rate that is within the range of 30% to 59%, which is noted in studies of IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria [48,51,52]. A cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) was present in 9.1% of the patients of the present review, while in other studies of patients with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, that rate was as high as 29% [48,51,52]. In another study providing data on patients with IE by Campylobacter species, which was not included in the present analysis since it provided aggregated data that could not be used for individual patient analysis, 69.2% occurred in patients with prosthetic valves or intracardiac devices [53]. This high rate resembles that noted in other studies of IE by pathogens associated with foodborne transmission, like Listeria or Salmonella [54,55]. Notably, in both of these studies, patients were older than those with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, implying that IE by these pathogens that are transmitted through the foodborne route may require more susceptible patients, such as older patients and those with relative immunosuppression [54,55].
A central venous catheter (CVC) was present in 4.5% of patients with Campylobacter species IE, a rate lower than in other reports of IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, where it ranged from 17% to 20% [48,51,52]. A previous IE episode was noted in the medical history of 9.1% of patients in the present review. In other studies of patients with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, that rate varied from 0 to 67% [48,51,52]. Notably, recent gastroenteritis was mentioned in the recent medical history of patients with Campylobacter species IE in 21.7% of cases. This unique characteristic that had not been evaluated in other studies of patients with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria is probably associated with the tropism of Campylobacter species to the gastrointestinal tract. Importantly, the present review identified C. fetus as the almost exclusive cause of IE by Campylobacter species, with only one patient having IE by C. jejuni. This is of particular importance since it could imply that C. fetus may also have the gastrointestinal tract as a portal of entry in these patients, despite the knowledge that C. fetus is mainly associated with invasive disease rather than gastrointestinal disease [8].
The most commonly infected valve was the aortic, in 63.6% of patients, and the mitral, in 27.3%. These rates were different in two other studies of IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, where the mitral valve was the most commonly infected in 31% of patients, followed by the aortic in 24% in the first study [48], with the aortic being the most commonly infected in 42% of patients, followed by the tricuspid valve in 33% in the second study [52].
Regarding clinical presentation, fever was the most common symptom and was noted in 50% of patients, while 25% were septic. In other studies with IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacilli, fever was much more frequently reported in 92% [48,52]. Heart failure was noted in 29.2% of patients with Campylobacter species IE, which is similar to the rate seen in other cases of IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, that is, from 8% to 37% [48,52]. Embolic phenomena in Campylobacter species IE were noted in 16.7%, which is at the lower end of the rate in IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, which ranged from 17% to 65% [48,51,52]. A paravalvular abscess was diagnosed in 16% of patients with Campylobacter species IE, which is a rate lower than that noted in patients suffering from IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria where that rate was within the range of 25% to 42% [48,52].
Regarding antimicrobial resistance, all strains in studies with available data were susceptible to aminopenicillins, while resistance to aminoglycosides and quinolones was lower than 10%. Resistance to tetracyclines was 13.6%. In a study evaluating the antimicrobial resistance of 111 strains of C. fetus ssp. fetus isolated in Canada from 1983 to 2000, similar results to those presented by the present review were seen. Specifically, antimicrobial resistance to aminopenicillins, aminoglycosides, and quinolones was low. However, antimicrobial resistance to tetracyclines was higher than noted in the present review and was 34% [56]. In another relatively older study that also evaluated the antimicrobial resistance of C. fetus strains, antimicrobial resistance to aminopenicillins was also zero, while antimicrobial resistance to tetracyclines was 27% [57]. In a more recent study providing data on patients with vascular infections and IE by Campylobacter species, tetracycline resistance was high in C. jejuni (80%) and was quite low in C. fetus (13.2%). Moreover, resistance to ciprofloxacin was 25% in C. fetus and 60% in C. jejuni [53]. Knowledge about the development of the antimicrobial resistance of C. fetus is lacking. At the same time, there is also a lack of epidemiological cut-off values and clinical breakpoints to aid the characterization of strains with antimicrobial resistance [58]. In a recent study, van der Graaf-van Bloois et al. determined the phenotypic susceptibility pattern and the resistome of C. fetus by performing whole-genome analysis of 295 C. fetus strains [58]. An increase in antimicrobial resistance was noted, and specific differences were observed between C. fetus subspecies. Genomic markers for antimicrobial resistance were detected only in C. fetus ssp. fetus strains and increased after 2000 [58]. Beyond the known intrinsic resistance to nalidixic acid, intrinsic resistance to trimethoprim was noted phenotypically, but a genetic basis was not identified. Resistance genes could be associated with antimicrobial resistance to aminoglycosides and tetracycline. Substitutions in gyrA were defined and conferred resistance to fluoroquinolones. The antimicrobial resistance genes were widely found on mobile elements [58]. Given the abovementioned results of antimicrobial resistance, it is no surprise that aminoglycosides and beta-lactams, such as carbapenems or aminopenicillins, were used to treat Campylobacter species IE.
Mortality was notable, with one out of four patients dying, and most succumbed, mainly due to Campylobacter species IE. This rate was at the higher end of the range noted in other studies providing data on patients suffering from IE caused by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, where the mortality ranged from 0% to 24% [48,51,52]. In the current study, patients who died were more likely to have had sepsis, shock, and heart failure. At the same time, patients who survived were more likely to have been treated with aminopenicillins. However, no such factor was identified from a multivariate logistic regression analysis as an independent factor for overall mortality. Notably, heart failure and shock have been reported as classical factors associated with mortality in patients with IE in other studies in many different countries, even though these data are derived from patients with IE in general and not by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria [59,60,61].
A very recent study presented data from a 5-year retrospective study in France that included 57 patients with bacteremia by Campylobacter species [53]. Among these patients, 12 had IE, 44 had vascular infections, and 1 had both. The most frequently identified species was C. fetus, similar to the data shown in the present review. However, other species, such as six C. jejuni, one C. lari, one C. rectus, one C. upsaliensis, and one Campylobacter spp., were also noted. Given that C. fetus can cause invasive disease and is by far the most common cause of IE by this species, clinicians may consider performing echocardiography in patients with bacteremia by C. fetus, especially when other predisposing factors or clinical signs point towards the diagnosis of IE.
The antimicrobial treatment most commonly included monotherapy with beta-lactams or a combination of beta-lactams with quinolones or aminoglycosides. Mortality was 25%, a rate identical to the one noted in the present review; however, the mortality of patients with IE was 15.4% and was evaluated at three months. Notably, this study had not been included in the current review since the data were aggregated and no data could be extracted to allow individual patient analysis, as performed in the present review.
An important aspect of this study concerns the changes in the diagnosis and treatment of IE over the years. This is particularly important given that the studies that contributed data in the present review date back to 1966, while some were published a few years ago. The diagnosis of IE has changed over the years. IE was first documented by Lazare Riviere in 1646 [62,63]. At the autopsy of a patient who presented with palpitations and irregular pulse and died soon after presentation, “round carbuncles” were noted in the left ventricle, resembling a “cluster of hazelnuts” reaching the “opening of the aorta”. This report has been considered the first reporting aortic valve disease with vegetations of endocarditis [63]. The first detailed description of IE was performed in 1825 and is noted in ‘’Traité Clinique des maladies du Coeur’’ by Jean Baptiste Bouillaud [64]. In that work, the stages of IE are noted, starting from edema to inflammatory and fibrotic changes, and, eventually, calcification and ossification, leading to valvular dysfunction. Emanuel Fredrik Hagbarth Winge and Theodor Albrecht Edwin Klebs, two students of Virchow, suggested that IE was caused by microorganisms, while William Osler recommended a simplification of the complex classifications that were previously used and pointed to the use of the Gram-stain that had been recently introduced to aid towards the diagnosis of IE [63]. Moreover, he described the typical painful red cutaneous nodules seen in IE (Osler nodules). Later in the 1970s, studies reporting on the need to disclose the presence of vegetation in M-mode echocardiography were published [65]. At that time, Stewart et al., from Duke University, reviewed the state of the art and summarized the positive echocardiographic signs but stated that even though echocardiography is a good method to evaluate the presence of IE, routine use may not be encouraged since half of patients with the clinical criteria may have an observable vegetation on echocardiography, while, in patients with a history of IE, echocardiography may have a low diagnostic power due to the slow regression of the vegetation [66]. Even though the presence of fever, anemia, and a murmur led to the suspicion of IE, in 1981, von Reyn performed an analysis of patients with IE with strict definitions and underlined the usefulness of strict definitions in managing suspect IE cases and their need in comparing clinical studies [67]. Later in the 1990s, Duke University made another important contribution by providing a systemization of clinical, microbiological, and echocardiographic characteristics towards the diagnosis of IE [68]. These criteria were later modified in 2000 by Li et al., who provided data from more than 800 patients, and these criteria were largely used in clinical studies later [69]. For the first time, Habib et al. introduce some modifications to the Duke criteria based on novel imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET) [70]. In 2021, the International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVIDs) created a working group of 25 experts from five continents and six subspecialties implicated in the management of IE (infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, cardiovascular pathology, cardiovascular surgery, radiology, and cardiology) to update the diagnostic criteria for IE. This led to the publication of the 2023 Duke-ISCVID IE criteria that proposed important changes in terms of new diagnostic methods in microbiology, intraoperative inspection as a major criterion, new imaging techniques, predisposing conditions, and changes in microbiology to the previous criteria [20]. Given that the present review includes studies presenting cases of IE spanning many different decades, with some of them being published in an era when even echocardiography was not readily available, the means for establishing a diagnosis and the diagnostic accuracy of the criteria used may have differed from study to study. In all the eventually included studies, the investigators assessed all the provided evidence to confirm the diagnosis of IE based on currently applying the 2023 Duke-ISCVID criteria.
The treatment of IE has also undergone substantive changes through the decades. As an example, aminoglycosides were once considered necessary in the treatment of IE in conjunction with another antimicrobial; however, their benefit in treating IE has recently been challenged, leading to a reduction in their use [71]. This has also been noted in the studies published in the present review, where aminoglycosides were used to a lesser extent in more recent studies. Another significant change includes the treatment route for IE. More specifically, intravenous antimicrobials for the total duration of the treatment of IE had always been considered the mainstay of its management. Recently, the POET trial led to a reconsideration of the treatment in some patients suffering from IE if certain conditions are met [72]. Thus, some heterogeneity in the treatment of IE also existed during the decades when the studies included in the present review were published. However, given that Campylobacter species are Gram-negative pathogens, do not belong to the HACEK group, and are rare microbial causes of IE, no specific guidance existed for treating these pathogens. Thus, the treatment of IE by such pathogens has relied on expert opinion or experience derived from relatively small studies of patients with this infection [43,73].
This review has some notable limitations. First, it mainly includes information from case reports. Thus, the present results should be read cautiously, as the quality of evidence was low. Additionally, the number of the included patients is also low, meaning that overly safe conclusions cannot be derived. However, given the rarity of this infection, no data providing adequate information for individual patient analysis could be drawn from larger studies or national registries of patients with IE. Furthermore, data on IE by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria are generally scarce, with E. coli and P. aeruginosa being the most prevalent microorganisms among this rare microbiological group. As an example, non-HACEK Gram-negative bacilli were the cause of 1.8% of IE in a study with 2761 patients with this infection, with none of them suffering from IE by Campylobacter species [48]. Moreover, publication bias may have affected the results presented in the present review. Finally, the significant heterogeneity in the diagnosis and treatment of IE over the years may have affected the diagnostic accuracy of the methods used.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, this study presents the epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological characteristics of patients with Campylobacter species IE as well as their treatment and outcomes. C. fetus was the identified species in almost all cases, but gastrointestinal symptoms were noted before the diagnosis of IE in many patients, even though C. fetus is classically primarily associated with extraintestinal disease. Thus, in patients with bacteremia by C. fetus, echocardiography could be considered to allow for the exclusion of IE. Antimicrobial resistance was minimal; thus, several antimicrobial options exist for treating this infection. Beta-lactams, commonly in combination with aminoglycosides, were used to treat this infection. As in other IE cases by non-HACEK Gram-negative bacteria, mortality was high.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.I. and G.S.; methodology, P.I. and A.G.T.; software, P.I.; validation, P.I. and A.S.; formal analysis, P.I.; investigation, A.S. and A.G.T.; resources, P.I.; data curation, P.I.; writing—original draft preparation, P.I. and A.S.; writing—review and editing, G.S. and A.G.T.; visualization, P.I.; supervision, P.I.; project administration, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kamde, S.P.; Anjankar, A. Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Infective Endocarditis, and Its Complications. Cureus 2022, 14, e29182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Baddour, L.M.; Wilson, W.R.; Bayer, A.S.; Fowler, V.G.; Tleyjeh, I.M.; Rybak, M.J.; Barsic, B.; Lockhart, P.B.; Gewitz, M.H.; Levison, M.E.; et al. Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Complications: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015, 132, 1435–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wang, A.; Gaca, J.G.; Chu, V.H. Management Considerations in Infective Endocarditis: A Review. JAMA 2018, 320, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Habib, G.; Erba, P.A.; Iung, B.; Donal, E.; Cosyns, B.; Laroche, C.; Popescu, B.A.; Prendergast, B.; Tornos, P.; Sadeghpour, A.; et al. Clinical Presentation, Aetiology and Outcome of Infective Endocarditis. Results of the ESC-EORP EURO-ENDO (European Infective Endocarditis) Registry: A Prospective Cohort Study. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 3222–3232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shah, A.S.V.; McAllister, D.A.; Gallacher, P.; Astengo, F.; Rodríguez Pérez, J.A.; Hall, J.; Lee, K.K.; Bing, R.; Anand, A.; Nathwani, D.; et al. Incidence, Microbiology, and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized with Infective Endocarditis. Circulation 2020, 141, 2067–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cresti, A.; Chiavarelli, M.; Scalese, M.; Nencioni, C.; Valentini, S.; Guerrini, F.; D’Aiello, I.; Picchi, A.; De Sensi, F.; Habib, G. Epidemiological and Mortality Trends in Infective Endocarditis, a 17-Year Population-Based Prospective Study. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 2017, 7, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Papakonstantinou, P.E.; Samonis, G.; Andrianaki, A.M.; Christofaki, M.; Dimopoulou, D.; Papadakis, J.; Gikas, A.; Kofteridis, D.P. Epidemiology, Microbiological and Clinical Features, Treatment, and Outcomes of Infective Endocarditis in Crete, Greece. Infect. Chemother. 2018, 50, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bennett, J.E.; Dolin, E.; Blaser, M.J. Mandell, Douglas, And Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 9th ed.; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vandamme, P.; Vancanneyt, M.; Pot, B.; Mels, L.; Hoste, B.; Dewettinck, D.; Vlaes, L.; van den Borre, C.; Higgins, R.; Hommez, J. Polyphasic Taxonomic Study of the Emended Genus Arcobacter with Arcobacter Butzleri Comb. Nov. and Arcobacter Skirrowii Sp. Nov., an Aerotolerant Bacterium Isolated from Veterinary Specimens. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 1992, 42, 344–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Fennell, C.L.; Totten, P.A.; Quinn, T.C.; Patton, D.L.; Holmes, K.K.; Stamm, W.E. Characterization of Campylobacter-like Organisms Isolated from Homosexual Men. J. Infect. Dis. 1984, 149, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Steele, T.W.; McDermott, S.N. The Use of Membrane Filters Applied Directly to the Surface of Agar Plates for the Isolation of Campylobacter Jejuni from Feces. Pathology 1984, 16, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lastovica, A.J.; Le Roux, E. Efficient Isolation of Campylobacter Upsaliensis from Stools. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2001, 39, 4222–4223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blaser, M.J.; Taylor, D.N.; Feldman, R.A. Epidemiology of Campylobacter Jejuni Infections. Epidemiol. Rev. 1983, 5, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Friedman, C.R.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Samuel, M.; Marcus, R.; Bender, J.; Shiferaw, B.; Reddy, S.; Ahuja, S.D.; Helfrick, D.L.; Hardnett, F.; et al. Risk Factors for Sporadic Campylobacter Infection in the United States: A Case-Control Study in FoodNet Sites. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2004, 38 (Suppl. S3), S285–S296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gallay, A.; Bousquet, V.; Siret, V.; Prouzet-Mauléon, V.; de Valk, H.; Vaillant, V.; Simon, F.; Le Strat, Y.; Mégraud, F.; Desenclos, J.-C. Risk Factors for Acquiring Sporadic Campylobacter Infection in France: Results from a National Case-Control Study. J. Infect. Dis. 2008, 197, 1477–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Stafford, R.J.; Schluter, P.J.; Wilson, A.J.; Kirk, M.D.; Hall, G.; Unicomb, L. OzFoodNet Working Group Population-Attributable Risk Estimates for Risk Factors Associated with Campylobacter Infection, Australia. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Labarca, J.A.; Sturgeon, J.; Borenstein, L.; Salem, N.; Harvey, S.M.; Lehnkering, E.; Reporter, R.; Mascola, L. Campylobacter Upsaliensis: Another Pathogen for Consideration in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2002, 34, E59–E60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Giesendorf, B.A.; van Belkum, A.; Koeken, A.; Stegeman, H.; Henkens, M.H.; van der Plas, J.; Goossens, H.; Niesters, H.G.; Quint, W.G. Development of Species-Specific DNA Probes for Campylobacter Jejuni, Campylobacter Coli, and Campylobacter Lari by Polymerase Chain Reaction Fingerprinting. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1993, 31, 1541–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Durovic, A.; Seth-Smith, H.M.B.; Hinic, V.; Kurz, M.; Khanna, N.; Egli, A. Two Simultaneous Cases of Disseminated Infections with Campylobacter fetus: Clinical Characteristics and Molecular Comparison. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 141–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Fowler, V.G.; Durack, D.T.; Selton-Suty, C.; Athan, E.; Bayer, A.S.; Chamis, A.L.; Dahl, A.; DiBernardo, L.; Durante-Mangoni, E.; Duval, X.; et al. The 2023 Duke-ISCVID Criteria for Infective Endocarditis: Updating the Modified Duke Criteria. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2023, 77, ciad271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Loeb, H.; Bettag, J.L.; Yung, N.K.; King, S.; Bronsky, D. Vibrio Fetus Endocarditis. Am. Heart J. 1966, 71, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chung, Y.; Lee, S.Y. Vibrio Fetus Human Infection -Isolation from a Subacute Bacterial Endocarditis Case-. Yonsei Med. J. 1970, 11, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Yoshioka Lee, M.; Ludwig, J.; Geraci, J.E.; Washington, J.A. Fatal Vibrio Fetus Endocarditis: Report of One Case and Review of the Literature. Virchows Arch. Abt. Pathol. Anat. 1970, 350, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wozniak, R.; Middleton, J.; Chmel, H.; Li Cruz, C.D.; Young, R. Gram-Negative Endocarditis Caused by Campylobacter fetus. South. Med. J. 1978, 71, 1311–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pönkä, A.; Pitkänen, T.; Pettersson, T.; Aittoniemi, S.; Kosunen, T.U. Carditis and Arthritis Associated with Campylobacter Jejuni Infection. Acta Med. Scand. 1980, 208, 495–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Caramelli, B.; Mansur, A.J.; Grinberg, M.; Mendes, C.M.F.; Pileggi, F. Campylobacter fetus Endocarditis on a Prosthetic Heart Valve. South. Med. J. 1988, 81, 802–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Allerberger, F.; Kasten, M.J.; Anhalt, J.P. Campylobacter fetus Subspecies Fetus Infection. Klin. Wochenschr. 1991, 69, 813–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Farrugia, D.C.; Eykyn, S.J.; Smyth, E.G. Campylobacter fetus Endocarditis: Two Case Reports and Review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1994, 18, 443–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abe, K.; Nakamura, S.; Ninomiya, T.; Shinohara, M.; Oka, M.; Koyanagi, T.; Nishimura, J.; Yufu, Y.; Takayanagi, R.; Nawata, H. Infective Endocarditis Caused by Campylobacter fetus after Allogeneic Tooth Transplantation: A Case Report. Br. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 1996, 34, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Peetermans, W.E.; De Man, F.; Moerman, P.; Van De Werf, F. Fatal Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Due to Campylobacter fetus. J. Infect. 2000, 41, 180–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mahe, I.; Perdrix, C.; Maniere, T.; Holeman, A.; Diemer, M.; Bergmann, J.-F. A Case of Campylobacter fetus Endocarditis of the Tricuspid Valve Unaccompanied by Fever. Am. J. Med. 2001, 111, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Miki, K.; Maekura, R.; Hiraga, T.; Hirotani, A.; Hashimoto, H.; Kitada, S.; Miki, M.; Yoshimura, K.; Naka, N.; Motone, M.; et al. Infective Tricuspid Valve Endocarditis with Pulmonary Emboli Caused by Campylobacter fetus after Tooth Extraction. Intern. Med. 2005, 44, 1055–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wallet, F.; Lameyse, A.; Decoene, C.; Vincentelli, A.; Courcol, R. A Case of Mitral Endocarditis Due to Campylobacter Fetus Subsp. Fetus. Jpn. J. Infect. Dis. 2007, 60, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Haruyama, A.; Toyoda, S.; Kikuchi, M.; Arikawa, T.; Inami, S.; Otani, N.; Amano, H.; Matsuda, R.; Inoue, T. Campylobacter Fetus as Cause of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis. Tex. Heart Inst. J. 2011, 38, 584–587. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Suy, F.; Le Dû, D.; Roux, A.-L.; Hanachi, M.; Dinh, A.; Crémieux, A.-C. Meningitis and Endocarditis Caused by Campylobacter fetus after Raw-Liver Ingestion. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 3147–3150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Reid, M.J.A.; Shannon, E.M.; Baxi, S.M.; Chin-Hong, P. Steak Tartare Endocarditis. BMJ Case Rep. 2016, bcr2015212928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sękowska, A.; Fabiszak, T.; Mikucka, A.; Andrzejewska, M.; Kruszyńska, E.; Gospodarek, E.; Klawe, J. A Case of Defibrillator-Associated Infective Endocarditis Due to Campylobacter fetus. Folia Microbiol. 2016, 61, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Petridou, C.; Strakova, L.; Simpson, R. Campylobacter fetus Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Presenting as a Stroke. JMM Case Rep. 2018, 5, e005147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lynch, C.T.; Buttimer, C.; Epping, L.; O’Connor, J.; Walsh, N.; McCarthy, C.; O’Brien, D.; Vaughan, C.; Semmler, T.; Bolton, D.; et al. Phenotypic and Genetic Analyses of Two Campylobacter fetus Isolates from a Patient with Relapsed Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis. Pathog. Dis. 2022, 79, ftab055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bak, A.; Kim, T.S.; Park, H.; Park, J.H. Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis Caused by Campylobacter fetus: A Case Report and Literature Review. J. Int. Med. Res. 2023, 51, 03000605231213264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gaultier, S.; Jousset, A.B.; Soudani, M.; Durroux, A.; Mihaila, L.; Neiss, M.; Collarino, R.; Jauréguiberry, S.; Escaut, L. Campylobacter Coli Enteritis Associated with Campylobacter fetus Bacteremia, Spondylodiscitis, and Late CIED-Related Endocarditis, a Case Report. Heliyon 2024, 10, e24418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Raza, S.S.; Sultan, O.W.; Sohail, M.R. Gram-Negative Bacterial Endocarditis in Adults: State-of-the-Heart. Expert. Rev. Anti-Infect. Ther. 2010, 8, 879–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bouza, E.; Muñoz, P.; Burillo, A. Gram-Negative Endocarditis: Disease Presentation, Diagnosis and Treatment. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 2021, 34, 672–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ioannou, P.; Mavrikaki, V.; Kofteridis, D.P. Infective Endocarditis by Acinetobacter Species: A Systematic Review. J. Chemother. 2021, 33, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ioannou, P.; Vamvoukaki, R.; Kofteridis, D.P. Infective Endocarditis by Enterobacter Cloacae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Chemother. 2021, 34, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ioannou, P.; Miliara, E.; Baliou, S.; Kofteridis, D.P. Infective Endocarditis by Klebsiella Species: A Systematic Review. J. Chemother. 2021, 33, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ioannou, P.; Vougiouklakis, G. Infective Endocarditis by Proteus Species: A Systematic Review. Germs 2020, 10, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Morpeth, S.; Murdoch, D.; Cabell, C.H.; Karchmer, A.W.; Pappas, P.; Levine, D.; Nacinovich, F.; Tattevin, P.; Fernández-Hidalgo, N.; Dickerman, S.; et al. Non-HACEK Gram-Negative Bacillus Endocarditis. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 147, 829–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ertugrul Mercan, M.; Arslan, F.; Ozyavuz Alp, S.; Atilla, A.; Seyman, D.; Guliyeva, G.; Kayaaslan, B.; Sari, S.; Mutay Suntur, B.; Isik, B.; et al. Non-HACEK Gram-Negative Bacillus Endocarditis. Med. Mal. Infect. 2019, 49, 616–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sebillotte, M.; Boutoille, D.; Declerck, C.; Talarmin, J.-P.; Lemaignen, A.; Piau, C.; Revest, M.; Tattevin, P.; Gousseff, M. Groupe d‘Epidémiologie et Recherche en Infectiologie Clinique du Centre et de l’Ouest (GERICCO) Non-HACEK Gram-Negative Bacilli Endocarditis: A Multicentre Retrospective Case-Control Study. Infect. Dis. 2023, 55, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Veve, M.P.; McCurry, E.D.; Cooksey, G.E.; Shorman, M.A. Epidemiology and Outcomes of Non-HACEK Infective Endocarditis in the Southeast United States. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Loubet, P.; Lescure, F.-X.; Lepage, L.; Kirsch, M.; Armand-Lefevre, L.; Bouadma, L.; Lariven, S.; Duval, X.; Yazdanpanah, Y.; Joly, V. Endocarditis Due to Gram-Negative Bacilli at a French Teaching Hospital over a 6-Year Period: Clinical Characteristics and Outcome. Infect. Dis. 2015, 47, 889–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tinévez, C.; Lehours, P.; Ranc, A.-G.; Belaroussi, Y.; Velardo, F.; Dubois, D.; Neuwirth, C.; Pailhoriès, H.; Dorel, M.; Hery-Arnaud, G.; et al. Multicenter Retrospective Study of Vascular Infections and Endocarditis Caused by Campylobacter Spp., France. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2023, 29, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Shoai-Tehrani, M.; Pilmis, B.; Maury, M.M.; Robineau, O.; Disson, O.; Jouvion, G.; Coulpier, G.; Thouvenot, P.; Bracq-Dieye, H.; Valès, G.; et al. Listeria Monocytogenes-Associated Endovascular Infections: A Study of 71 Consecutive Cases. J. Infect. 2019, 79, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cheng, W.-L.; Li, C.-W.; Li, M.-C.; Lee, N.-Y.; Lee, C.-C.; Ko, W.-C. Salmonella Infective Endocarditis. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2016, 49, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Tremblay, C.; Gaudreau, C.; Lorange, M. Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Susceptibilities of 111 Campylobacter fetus Subsp. Fetus Strains Isolated in Québec, Canada, from 1983 to 2000. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2003, 41, 463–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Tremblay, C.; Gaudreau, C. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of 59 Strains of Campylobacter fetus Subsp. Fetus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1998, 42, 1847–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. van der Graaf-van Bloois, L.; Duim, B.; Looft, T.; Veldman, K.T.; Zomer, A.L.; Wagenaar, J.A. Antimicrobial Resistance in Campylobacter fetus: Emergence and Genomic Evolution. Microb. Genom. 2023, 9, mgen000934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  59. Marques, A.; Cruz, I.; Caldeira, D.; Alegria, S.; Gomes, A.C.; Broa, A.L.; João, I.; Pereira, H. Risk Factors for In-Hospital Mortality in Infective Endocarditis. Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 2020, 114, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Moiseev, V.S.; Kobalava, Z.D.; Pisaryuk, A.S.; Milto, A.S.; Kotova, E.O.; Karaulova, Y.L.; Kahktsyan, P.V.; Chukalin, A.S.; Balatskiy, A.V.; Safarova, A.F.; et al. Infective Endocarditis in Moscow General Hospital: Clinical Characteristi. Kardiologiia 2018, 58, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Tuğcu, A.; Yildirimtürk, O.; Baytaroğlu, C.; Kurtoğlu, H.; Köse, O.; Sener, M.; Aytekin, S. Clinical Spectrum, Presentation, and Risk Factors for Mortality in Infective Endocarditis: A Review of 68 Cases at a Tertiary Care Center in Turkey. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars 2009, 37, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  62. Contrepois, A. Towards a History of Infective Endocarditis. Med. Hist. 1996, 40, 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Geller, S.A. Infective Endocarditis: A History of the Development of Its Understanding. Autops. Case Rep. 2013, 3, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bouillaud, J.B. Traite Clinique Des Maladies Du Coeur; Hausner, E.; Bailliere, B., Translators; HardPress Publishing: Paris, France, 1835. [Google Scholar]
  65. Grinberg, M.; Solimene, M.C. Historical Aspects of Infective Endocarditis. Rev. Assoc. Medica Bras. 2011, 57, 228–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Stewart, J.A.; Silimperi, D.; Harris, P.; Wise, N.K.; Fraker, T.D.; Kisslo, J.A. Echocardiographic Documentation of Vegetative Lesions in Infective Endocarditis: Clinical Implications. Circulation 1980, 61, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Von Reyn, C.F.; Levy, B.S.; Arbeit, R.D.; Friedland, G.; Crumpacker, C.S. Infective Endocarditis: An Analysis Based on Strict Case Definitions. Ann. Intern. Med. 1981, 94, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Durack, D.T.; Lukes, A.S.; Bright, D.K. New Criteria for Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis: Utilization of Specific Echocardiographic Findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am. J. Med. 1994, 96, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Li, J.S.; Sexton, D.J.; Mick, N.; Nettles, R.; Fowler, V.G.; Ryan, T.; Bashore, T.; Corey, G.R. Proposed Modifications to the Duke Criteria for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis. Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2000, 30, 633–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Habib, G.; Lancellotti, P.; Antunes, M.J.; Bongiorni, M.G.; Casalta, J.-P.; Del Zotti, F.; Dulgheru, R.; El Khoury, G.; Erba, P.A.; Iung, B.; et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Infective Endocarditis: The Task Force for the Management of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by: European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 3075–3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Lebeaux, D.; Fernández-Hidalgo, N.; Pilmis, B.; Tattevin, P.; Mainardi, J.-L. Aminoglycosides for Infective Endocarditis: Time to Say Goodbye? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2020, 26, 723–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Iversen, K.; Ihlemann, N.; Gill, S.U.; Madsen, T.; Elming, H.; Jensen, K.T.; Bruun, N.E.; Høfsten, D.E.; Fursted, K.; Christensen, J.J.; et al. Partial Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment of Endocarditis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Calderón Parra, J.; De Castro-Campos, D.; Muñoz García, P.; Olmedo Samperio, M.; Marín Arriaza, M.; De Alarcón, A.; Gutierrez-Carretero, E.; Fariñas Alvarez, M.C.; Miró Meda, J.M.; Goneaga Sanchez, M.Á.; et al. Non-HACEK Gram Negative Bacilli Endocarditis: Analysis of a National Prospective Cohort. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2021, 92, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pathogens 13 00594 g001
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Campylobacter species infective endocarditis.
Figure 1. Geographical distribution of Campylobacter species infective endocarditis.
Pathogens 13 00594 g001
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
StudyNumber of PatientsAge (Years)GenderSite of
Infection n		Microbiology of Infection, nTreatment
Administered, n		Infection
Outcomes, n
Loeb et al., 1966 [21]249, 672 Male1 AoV
1 NR		2 C. fetus2 Penicillin
2 Aminoglycoside
1 Tetracycline		Deaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 1
Chung et al., 1966 [22]143FemaleNRC. fetusPenicillinDeaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 1
Yoshioka Lee et al., 1970 [23]159FemaleAoVC. fetusPenicillin
Aminoglycoside
Tetracycline		Deaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 1
Wozniak et al., 1985 [24]139MaleAoV, MVC. fetusPenicillin
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Pönkä et al., 1988 [25]130MaleAoV, MVC. jejuniAminopenicillin
Macrolide
Aminoglycoside		Deaths overall 0
Caramelli et al., 1988 [26]147MaleMVC. fetusPenicillin
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Allerberger et al., 1989 [27]270, 841 Male
1 Female		1 AoV
1 NR		2 C. fetus1 Aminopenicillin
1 Quinolone
1 Aminoglycoside
1 Surgery		Deaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 0
Farrugia et al., 1991 [28]260, 762 Female2 AoV2 C. fetus1 Penicillin
1 Aminopenicillin
1 Quinolone
2 Aminoglycoside
2 Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Abe et al., 1992 [29]152MaleAoVC. fetusAminopenicillin
Quinolone
Macrolide
Aminoglycoside		Deaths overall 0
Peetermans et al., 1992 [30]156MaleAoVC. fetusMacrolide
Aminoglycoside		Deaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 1
Mahe et al., 1999 [31]169FemaleTrVC. fetusAminopenicillin
Quinolone
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Miki et al., 1999 [32]163MaleTrVC. fetusCarbapenem
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Wallet et al., 2003 [33]141FemaleMVC. fetusAminopenicillin
Quinolone
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Haruyama et al., 2006 [34]142MaleAoVC. fetusAminopenicillin
Carbapenem
Aminoglycoside		Deaths overall 0
Suy et al., 2007 [35]151MaleAoVC. fetusCarbapenem
Aminoglycoside		Deaths overall 0
Reid et al., 2008 [36]164MaleAoVC. fetusCarbapenem
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Sękowska et al., 2009 [37]155MaleCIEDC. fetusQuinolone
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 0
Petridou et al., 2009 [38]165MaleAoVC. fetusAminopenicillin
Cephalosporin
Macrolide
Aminoglycoside		Deaths overall 0
Durovic et al., 2018 [19]271, 891 Male
1 Female		1 TrV
1 MV		2 C. fetus2 Carbapenem
1 Surgery		Deaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 0
Lynch et al., 2018 [39]143MaleNRC. fetusNRDeaths overall 0
Bak et al., 2019 [40]146MaleAoV, MVC. fetusPiperacillin/tazobactam
Carbapenem
Aminoglycoside
Surgery		Deaths overall 1
Deaths due to IE 1
Gaultier et al., 2019 [41]149FemaleCIEDC. fetusAminopenicillinDeaths overall 0
AoV: aortic valve; CIED: cardiac implantable electronic device; MV: mitral valve TrV: tricuspid valve.
Table 2. Patients’ characteristics and infections’ outcome.
Table 2. Patients’ characteristics and infections’ outcome.
CharacteristicAll Patients
(n = 26) *		Survived
(n = 19) *		Died
(n = 7) *		p-Value
Age, years, median (IQR)65 (49.5–75.8)62.5 (48.8–76.3)67 (55.3–74.3)0.7575
Male gender, n (%)19 (73.1)13 (68.4)6 (85.7)0.6288
Predisposing factors
Prosthetic valve, n (%)8/22 (36.4)6/17 (35.3)2/5 (40)1
Congenital heart disease, n (%)5/22 (22.7)4/17 (3.5)1/5 (20)1
Previously on antibiotics, n (%)5/22 (22.7)3/17 (17.6)2/5 (40)0.5481
Recent gastroenteritis, n (%)5/23 (21.7)4/17 (23.5)1/6 (16.7)1
Bad teeth hygiene or recent dental work, n (%)4/22 (18.2)4/17 (23.5)0/5 (0)0.5352
CIED, n (%)2/22 (9.1)2/17 (11.8)0/5 (0)0.2098
Previous IE, n (%)2/22 (9.1)2/17 (11.8)0/5 (0)1
Rheumatic fever, n (%)1/22 (4.5)1/17 (5.9)0/5 (0)1
Central venous catheter, n (%)1/22 (4.5)0/17 (0)1/5 (20)0.2273
Post cardiac surgery, n (%)0/22 (0)0/17 (0)0/5 (0)NA
IVDU, n (%)0/22 (0)0/17 (0)0/5 (0)NA
Method of diagnosis
Transthoracic echocardiography, n (%)6/22 (27.3)5/17 (29.4)1/5 (20)1
Transesophageal echocardiography, n (%)6/22 (27.3)5/17 (29.4)1/5 (20)1
Autopsy, n (%)3/22 (13.6)NA3/5 (60)NA
Valve culture, n (%)4/22 (18.2)4/17 (23.5)0/5 (0)0.5352
Valve localization
Aortic valve, n (%)14/22 (63.6)10/17 (58.8)4/5 (80)0.6130
Mitral valve, n (%)6/22 (27.3)5/17 (29.4)1/5 (20)1
Tricuspid valve, n (%)3/22 (13.6)2/17 (11.8)1/5 (20)1
Multiple valves, n (%)3/22 (13.6)2/17 (11.8)1/5 (20)1
CIED, n (%)2/22 (9.1)2/17 (11.8)0/5 (0)1
Clinical characteristics
Fever, n (%)17/24 (70.8)8/18 (44.4)4/6 (66.7)0.6404
Sepsis, n (%)12/24 (50)1/18 (5.6)5/6 (83.3)0.0008
Heart failure, n (%)7/24 (29.2)3/18 (16.7)4/6 (66.7)0.0381
Shock, n (%)4/24 (16.7)0/18 (0)4/6 (66.7)0.0014
Embolic phenomena, n (%)4/24 (16.7)3/18 (16.7)1/6 (16.7)1
Paravalvular abscess, n (%)1/24 (4.2)0/18 (0)1/6 (16.7)0.2500
Immunological phenomena, n (%)0/24 (0)0/18 (0)0/6 (0)NA
Treatment
Aminoglycoside, n (%)19/25 (76)15/18 (83.3)4 (57.1)0.2985
Aminopenicillin, n (%)9/25 (36)9/18 (50)0 (0)0.0267
Penicillin, n (%)7/25 (28)4/18 (22.2)3 (42.9)0.3554
Carbapenem, n (%)7/25 (28)5/18 (27.8)2 (28.6)1
Quinolone, n (%)6/25 (24)5/18 (27.8)1 (14.3)1
Macrolide, n (%)4/25 (16)3/18 (16.7)1 (14.3)1
Tetracycline, n (%)2/25 (8)1/18 (5.6)1 (14.3)0.4900
Cephalosporin, n (%)1/25 (4)1/18 (5.6)0 (0)1
Antipseudomonal penicillin, n (%)1/25 (4)0/18 (0)1 (14.3)0.2800
Surgical management, n (%)12/25 (48)11/18 (61.1)1 (14.3)0.0730
Outcomes
Deaths due to infection, n (%)7 (26.9)NANANA
Deaths overall, n (%)5 (19.2)NANANA
CIED: cardiac implanted electronic device; IE: infective endocarditis; IQR: interquartile range; IVDU: intravenous drug use; NA: not applicable; *: data are among the number of patients mentioned above unless otherwise described.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ioannou, P.; Sourris, A.; Tsantes, A.G.; Samonis, G. Infective Endocarditis by Campylobacter Species—A Narrative Review. Pathogens 2024, 13, 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070594

AMA Style

Ioannou P, Sourris A, Tsantes AG, Samonis G. Infective Endocarditis by Campylobacter Species—A Narrative Review. Pathogens. 2024; 13(7):594. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070594

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ioannou, Petros, Angelos Sourris, Andreas G. Tsantes, and George Samonis. 2024. "Infective Endocarditis by Campylobacter Species—A Narrative Review" Pathogens 13, no. 7: 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070594

APA Style

Ioannou, P., Sourris, A., Tsantes, A. G., & Samonis, G. (2024). Infective Endocarditis by Campylobacter Species—A Narrative Review. Pathogens, 13(7), 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13070594

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop